It’s amazing that the Joint Chiefs took the time to pen this ridiculous letter. The Chiefs should focus on their day jobs and let the public decide whether the Washington Post or Tom Toles should be criticized. Found on AmericaBlog.com.
Futurosity was kind enough to provide me an invitation to Newsvine. Newsvine is a nice Web 2.0 site that gives you access to AP news feeds that can be accessed by topic. Then, similar to digg, members have the ability to vote for news stories of interest, and comment on the stories. Members can “seed” their own stories from other websites, and can even right their own “columns.” If you would like one of my 20 invites, please leave a comment and I’ll email it to you.
So, it appears, to my utter shock and dismay, there were NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?!? How could that be? We tried sooo hard to get alllll the information correct prior to the invasion. That there could have been a screw-up of this magnitude seems, well, incredible. No, really. Incredible, as in having no credibility. Defined in Webster’s as “capable of being believed; trustworthy”.
Given the penchant for exhaustive study and analysis constantly displayed by the Bush Administration, and their keen desire to get to the root of any and all problems, uncolored by ideology, rhetoric and dogma, I am floored by the revelation that the conclusion of the investigation into and quest for the “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq IS, (drum roll) . . .there aren’t any. . .. Thud.
Now, at the risk of sounding irreverent. (I know, I know. Chris? Irreverent?) As I was saying, at the risk of sounding irreverent, may we look at the thought processes involved for a second? Posit: Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq posed imminent danger to the United States. (imminent-likely to occur at any moment) The implication is that our leaders possess some kind of unerring prescience regarding the actions of a foreign leader with whom we have no relations. The Holy Triumvirate, i.e. Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld, are mind readers, with the Oracle’s ability to divine future events, and not just make a prediction, but have knowledge that is about to occur. This must be the case, for there was no concrete evidence of this impending attack, only rumor and misinterpreted satellite photographs. This talent enabled them to bravely engage in the glory of defending AMERICA. (Salute and say this aloud) For in the name of God, and AMERICA, we will bow to no one, especially not the terrorists in Iraq. (Wait a minute, I thought it was Saddam and weapons of mass destruction?) 9/11 Al- Qaeda 9/11 Al- Qaeda 9/11 Al- Qaeda 9/11 Al- Qaeda 9/11 Al- Qaeda.
Degenerating argument, you say? Really? Worked perfectly before.
This just in. After nearly two years of searching, it seems there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Whaaaa??!! No s***? C’mon, you’re f***ing with me.
So this somehow means that Bushco was wrong about WMD’s? Bushco’s ability to see clearly and accurately the impending attack by Iraq and their deadly arsenal was somehow clouded? With their absolute commitment to the truth, and dogged exhaustion of all other options available to them? Hardly seems likely that this could have happened with the level of effort and conscientiousness shown by the most powerful men in the world. Mining every logical source at their disposal. Surely there must be some other explanation? Their visions of mushroom clouds, and dirty bombs, and chemical and biological attacks were just that, only visions, not real? Well I’ll be hornswoggled. No, really.
Their ability to read the metaphorical tea leaves as nuanced and skillful as it is, how did they get it so wrong? I just don’t get it. I mean, these are men with hearts so big, men so concerned for the safety of all mankind, with dedicated compassion for the human condition and the sanctity of human life, right? You know, moral values kind of people.
And yet yesterday, January 12, we see that, according to Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan, we would have gone in anyway. I guess somehow that makes it OK we didn’t find anything after all. We went in for the right reasons. You see, because of us, there aren’t torture rooms anymo. . . . Oh, right, I need to qualify that. There aren’t torture rooms, run by Saddam Hussein, anymore. And civilians aren’t being killed by the thousands anymo. . . Oh, right, I also need to qualify that. There aren’t civilians being killed, by Saddam Hussein, by the thousands anymore. (estimates of up to a hundred thousand civilians killed by US forces, you know, unavoidable collateral damage, since we have been in Iraq) Anyway, the whole thing is going to be paid for with the oil money from getting the Iraqi wells up and running full bore, right? And the economy is going to boom from all the foreign companies coming in to take advantage of the new open market paradigm. That didn’t happen? What? Bushco failed to foresee the consequence of letting everything run amok after Saddam fell? Huh? They didn’t think that widespread looting and the disbanding of the only security force in Iraq would result in chaos? Wha? Didn’t foresee that in the absence of security, foreigners wouldn’t be safe, and therefore would take their business elsewhere? Eh? They didn’t expect a fierce insurgency would arise in response to the foreign infidels inside their borders? Gee, the Tarot cards didn’t show that ahead of time.
As any idiot can plainly see, (I can see it, he says) our civilian leaders possess such clear genius with respect to international matters, such profound understanding of diplomacy, such refined skill in the art of negotiation and compromise, and such respect for acquisition and consideration of all pertinent information prior to the initiation of any government or military action, it just wasn’t possible to know that what we were doing would result in the present morass in which we are mired.
Based on Bushco’s decision to protect us all by attacking Iraq first, I have full confidence in their judgment on all other matters of government.
How could I possibly think otherwise? After all, I’m a patriot, and patriots don’t think such thoughts.
Just one thought though. Politics is politics, but whatever happened to the principle of having principles? And not just redefining the word to fit your actions?
From the Washington Post last month:
In the East Room of the White House, Bush said he had chosen [George Tenet, Tommy Franks, and Paul Bremer to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom] because they “played pivotal roles in great events” and made efforts that “made our country more secure and advanced the cause of human liberty.” . . . The president heralded Tenet for being “one of the first to recognize” the growing threat to America from “radical terrorist networks.”
From the NY Times today:
An internal investigation by the Central Intelligence Agency has concluded that officials who served at the highest levels of the agency should be held accountable for failing to allocate adequate resources to combating terrorism before the Sept. 11 attacks, according to current and former intelligence officials. . . . Among those most sharply criticized in the report, the officials said, are George J. Tenet, the former intelligence chief.
Are you still in shock over the election? I know I am. My brain has been paralyzed for the six weeks since the election. I do realize that there are two very distinct perspectives of life, patriotism and security in this country. And I know by nature that the two seldom see eye-to-eye on issues. But isn’t there a middle ground any more? Listening to the rhetoric coming out of Washington, it certainly doesn’t seem so. Does the word “progress” mean anything anymore? Integrity? Responsibility? Science? (Silly me, of course I know that science has been relegated to the “quaint” category, along with the Geneva Convention and civil rights)
Going on a rant here, so be forewarned. Stream of consciousness engaging. . .
The “mandate” our leader has now will ensure that the following practices will continue unabated, if not accelerated. Degradation of personal liberties; freedom to travel unmolested (Literally. For those of you who have traveled recently, you know this term is not an exaggeration) and unhindered within our own country; dilution of services that we ALL take advantage of (read Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, . . . ), continuing conflation (I love that word) of the word enemy with “terrorist”; unconscionable mistreatment, torture, and killing of prisoners in our custody-most notably at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib; lack of respect for each human life. More executions? By God yes!! Kill the bastards! Pro-life? Yup. Nope. Health plan coverage for Viagra so all the men can have big boners? Sure, why not? (Sorry for being crass, it seemed appropriate here) Birth control and family planning to keep unwanted pregnancies from occurring? Nope; “Protect” the US and exact vengeance on the terrorists? Uh, yeah! Not care that the price is thousands of civilians killed as “collateral damage”. What a shame. For someone else that is; suppression of rational objective thought in the formation of national policy-to be replaced instead by policy measured by the yardstick of Christian dogma. e.g. the use of a narrow “moral” argument with respect to pre-marital sex, and the exclusion of the discussion of protection against disease and the use of birth control as opposed to the government’s actual responsibility to the public health of those involved; continued failure of W to assimilate the concept that just because he is a conservative right-wing Christian does not mean that he has the right to turn the government and this country into a theocracy;
Inhale
Blatant cronyism of the Cabinet staff appointments-can you say Bernard Kerik? This guy is a fully vetted candidate for Secretary of Homeland Security (Homeland Security?, don’t even get me started on just the name alone) and he is a crook and a philanderer; using the drumbeat of fear to drown out popular objection and objective analysis of irrational domestic and foreign policy; a dearth of accountability for mistaken and false statements, assumptions, conclusions, and actions undertaken, indeed the reward of those individuals involved with further tasks and accolades. e.g. today’s reward of the triumvirate of stewards of military, intelligence (and I use the term loosely), and civilian facets of the horribly bungled Iraq war with Presidential Medals of Freedom. And the continued presence of Donald Rumsfeld, although he has yet to make a correct assumption about any part of the Iraq situation; failure to formulate sound fiscal policy-the result being the increased economic stratification of our nation and the free-fall of the dollar internationally; blindly borrowing hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars to fund war and irresponsible tax cuts, threatening the solvency of our entire financial structure and future of our country; blatant pandering to energy interests. Our policy is what? To lessen the use of foreign oil? No, of course not. Hello. Oil is not going to last forever. Now is the time to develop alternate sources of energy And I don’t mean hydrogen. Do you know how much natural gas, oil, or coal you have to burn to provide enough energy to make hydrogen? It doesn’t just fall out of the air, or split from water on command. Not to mention the cost of constructing a hydrogen transport network, currently estimated at $5 trillion.) My personal opinion is that we should nationalize the energy companies. Then, at least, if there is profiteering, the proceeds go into our own pockets. Why is there no limit on the profits these companies may realize? It is not as if we, as residents of the US have a choice of whether we use electricity or gas or not. They are essential to everyone’s life on a daily basis;
Exhale
Failure to recognize that the US cannot stand on its own against the rest of the world (read up on Athenian history if you need a classic example-or more contemporarily, say, Great Britain? Or the Soviet Union?); expansion of the military, including the desire of our “fearless leader” (Bullwinkle fans?) to develop and use a whole new generation of nuclear weapons while at the same time blustering loudly about Iran and North Korea’s possible “illegal” nuclear capabilities; unilateral abrogation of established treaties; politicization of the entire governmental process. Has W left Democrats any choice in their opposition to any legislation coming their way in the Congress? They have been frozen out of committee since 2002, when the Republicans took over the majority in both houses, and have been allowed no input. NOT a uniter; the frightening and somehow seemingly conspiratorial fervor for keeping the workings of government hidden from view. I don’t know about you, but when the process is hidden and secret, it would seem to indicate there is something to hide, and I don’t mean those actions which are truly in the national interest. If what you are doing is the right thing, then what is the rationale for keeping it out of the public record?
Whew! That feels better. Not really, as the above is the bitter reality.
We are doomed to live the next four years in a country ruled by W and his false morality. According to Webster’s; morality – conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct; integrity – soundness of and adherence to moral principle and character. Does this describe W? Not in my opinion. In my moral system, the code with which I was raised, or think I was raised, the truth trumps all. Equality, cooperation, openness, responsibility, accountability, respect, honesty, compassion, dignity, humanity, gravity, nobility, industriousness, prudence (now there’s a thought), equity, justice, patience and endurance, forethought, hope, and modesty are the measures and qualities of my system. (Many of these are also the basis for the Roman Way, the qualities of life to which every Roman Citizen-and, ideally, everyone else-aspired. A great society the Romans. Whatever happened to them?)
These are what determine true character. It really has nothing to do with belief in God or not. W falls short on many of these counts, and it only hurts our country and our fellow citizens.
The mouth says one thing, the actions speak loudly to the contrary. I enclose several verses from Matthew 7:
16. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17. Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
20. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
22. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23. And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
This is W in a nutshell. (Austin? How did he get in that nutshell?) In his mind, he has done many wonderful works in His name. But his is the corrupt tree. Boiled down, distilled to its essence, this quite ungodly administration wholly, unabashedly, worships at the altar of power and the almighty dollar, nothing else.
Just a few notes from last night’s debate. The debate was heated, not very surprisingly. I was actually a bit disappointed in both candidates. Several times, their answers did not really relate to the audience member’s questions, but instead were reiterations of past comments. However, there were some comments made by Senator Kerry that underscored his suitability to occupy the highest office in the land. The statements were taken directly from the transcript of the debates, found at this link.
Q: Mr. President, if there were a vacancy in the Supreme Court and you had the opportunity to fill that position today, who would you choose and why?
A: (John Kerry in rebuttal) I subscribe to the Justice Potter Stewart standard. He was a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. And he said the mark of a good judge, good justice, is that when you are reading their decision, their opinion, you can’t tell if it’s written by a man or woman, a liberal or a conservative, a Muslim, a Jew or a Christian. You just know you’re reading a good judicial decision.
A few years ago when he came to office, the president said – these are his words – “What we need are some good conservative judges on the courts.”
Q: Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?
A: First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I’m a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today.
But I can’t take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn’t share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can’t do that. But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation.
And I have to make that judgment.
Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro-abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don’t deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can’t afford it otherwise.
That’s why I think it’s important. That’s why I think it’s important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about family planning.
In my opinion, Senator Kerry’s answer, regarding the Supreme Court, outlines exactly what we should expect from our judicial system-impartiality, non-partisanship, and lack of bias. It expresses one facet of his vision for a better America. Again, idealist Chris talking. But can we not, at the very least, aspire to that ideal? President Bush, on the other hand, is more concerned that we think and behave in his ideological form. The law and the Constitution take second chair.
With regard to the abortion question, I was caught off-guard by his answer. I don’t think he could have framed his response better. His view is absolutely, unequivocally correct. The President’s obligation is to see the law of the land, as laid out in the Constitution, applied fairly and equitably, not to impose a law according to rigid ideological restrictions not shared by all US citizens.
There may be arguments over who won or lost last night, but the American people, and our way of life, will be the true winners in January when John Kerry restores the integrity and perspective due the office of the Presidency.
I have this theory about terrorists and the policy of fighting them “over there”, so we don’t have to fight them here. In this theory, I compare terrorists to mold. Here’s how it goes.
Many people have mold problems in their houses, boats, or whatever. There are a couple ways to look at the problem. You can go out and purchase mold killing chemicals, and drying agents, and then go around and kill all the mold you see; at the base of walls, the floor, behind the toilet, under the rug, etc.; and treat the surface with the drying agents to slow down the spread of mold.
The flaw in this logic is, you haven’t done anything to identify the source(s), or taken the steps necessary to prevent the recurrence of the problem. Without this research, you are merely treating the symptom of a greater problem. The mold does not spring out of a vacuum-there are conditions which are conducive to its growth. Absent the elimination or mediation of the source of the mold, it keeps coming back over and over.
All you end up doing is killing the mold when it becomes visible. Get it?
Once the identification of the probable or proximate cause is made, then the logical course would be to formulate a strategy to remedy the situation. In the case of mold, once you find the source of moisture, the case is usually solved. You fix the leak, you dry the area, the mold dies out on its own.
We may choose to kill the terrorists when and where we find them, and continue to kill them whenever and wherever they appear. However, there is no possible way to kill them all if the conditions which produced them in the first place remain extant. There will always be another terrorist produced to take the place of the last one killed.
The way to achieve true progress in the greater fight is to first identify the source of the problem. Is it economic? Is it philosophical? Is it due to ecumenical threat? Other external stimuli? i.e. U.S. foreign policy? Or?
In the case of terrorism, what is the true reason for the hate of which we are the object? Do the homework, the “hard work”, to understand and identify the real motivation for this hate, and you are a long way toward solving the problem. As they say in a certain twelve-step program, first you have to admit you have a problem.
In the case of Iraq, Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda, et al, President Bush has yet to admit that we are part of the problem, not just victims. The hard work has yet to be done. We need to have vision-first, to see the proper course, and then, the conviction to take it. The prosecution of war to express your point of view is not vision; it is direct evidence of failure of vision.
Again, to paraphrase that certain program:
grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
the courage to change the things I can;
and the wisdom to know the difference
Real courage does not come while wielding a gun. I have always kept hope for wisdom in our current leadership, but continue to suffer from disappointment. It is for this reason, above all else, we need to remove President Bush and his administration from power.
With the next debate looming on the horizon, I just had a thought about the economy that comes from a different perspective than any I have heard thus far.
The voting population just seems to be entirely disconnected from the fact that the burgeoning national debt has an impact on them.
Perhaps if it were expressed that Mr. Bush has taken out an interest-only home loan and equity credit line, it would register.
If they were to understand that at some time you really do have to pay principal on the loan, that you can’t run the deficits ever-increasingly, that it can’t be interest-only forever, then people would understand that the tax-cuts are not actually cuts, only rubber checks written by the government on an overdrawn account.
The balloon payment is coming due, and who is going to pay then?
The companion issue is mortgaging our country, through the sale of bonds to finance our debt, to other nations. The real danger of current policy is ceding control of our capital markets and national economy to our creditor nations.
Who do we want to be in control of our money and future? Japan? Europe? Russia? Singapore? France? Canada? China? Saudi Arabia? (Saudi Arabia? Conspiracy theorists take note here)
President Bush has not protected the United States’ economy for the future generations. Instead, he has pandered to the rich and special interests, and bought the votes of the common man with his tiny “tax-cut” checks. He has sold us out.
People should realize that these checks are really only a loan of their own money, that we are all only currently paying the interest on that loan, and, as we all know, the payback is always going to be at least double the loan amount.
The clock is ticking, and we don’t have much time to rein in the profligate deficit spending of this administration. Just say NO!
I wake this morning to the fresh chance for John Kerry to assume the Oval Office in January. He was a clear winner in last night’s debate. Oh, the spinmeisters from the Republican side are all claiming victory today, but if you watched, as I did, no honest person could make that assertion.
Mr. Bush appeared flustered, angry, perturbed, confused, and mildly delusional in his continual repetition of his thirty minutes of prepared material. I say thirty minutes because, after the first half-hour, regardless of the question, his subsequent answers were mere paraphrases of his answers of the first half-hour. He was, and has been during the entire compaign, a broken record. His answers expressed no plan for our future, and no admission, explanation or justification for the mistakes of the past. Regardless of the question, Mr. Bush merely twisted his first few sentences of his answer until he got around to repeating the party line ideological dogma time after time. Is this the type of leader we want and need? What is his plan for future success in Iraq? As Mr. Kerry stated last night, the Bush plan is as follows: “More of the same”. Which means: each month, increasing casualties; each day, declaration that we are making good progress, “no worries”. Mr. Bush’s rebuttals were weak and meandering, many having nothing at all to do with Mr. Kerry’s comments, and some bordered on irrational and completely non sequitur. His body language was not that of a confident man. Several times he looked like a deer caught in the headlights of an oncoming car, with the grim realization of his fate. Just imagine W going into a summit conference, or treaty negotiation with the level of preparation and attitude we observed last night. Is it any wonder Mr. Bush cannot get any cooperation from our recalcitrant allies? Webster’s defines negotiate as, “to deal or bargain”; bargain as, “an agreement between parties settling what each shall give and take or perform and receive in a transaction”. This president does not give, he does not settle. He demands, and he takes. It is his way or the highway. And he again made that very clear last night. He is unwilling to admit ANY error in judgment. Once faced with that error, he then further compounds the mistake by his utter failure to adjust. He is closed to new ideas, and the concept of compromise. They say he practiced for six months for this debate. Did it show? I think not. I say he deserves a vacation, say, starting January 21, 2005? I’d give him a C-minus. A poor performance for a prospective commander-in-chief, let alone an incumbent.
By contrast, Mr. Kerry’s answers were clear and to the point. He actually answered the questions put forth. There was no waffling or “flip-flopping”. (Gawd, I hate that term. It sounds like some juvenile schoolyard taunt, which it is) He described how he would do things diferently, by engaging our allies and initiating dialogue with those who oppose us. He didn’t take armed force off the table. He simply considers it the very last option, not the only one. He knows war is evidence of the failure of imagination, and unprovoked war a weapon of choice not necessity. Mr. Bush’s Freudian slip last night was that Iraq attacked the United States. After being caught by Mr. Kerry in that lie, he retorted that of course he knew it was Bin Laden that attacked us. I’m not so sure. Mr. Kerry’s rebuttals were also clear, cogent, and germane to the questions. He was confident and at ease in this environment.
I think this debate was very telling in delineating their styles. Mr. Kerry exhibited the statesmanlike stature and ability that we deserve in a leader. He is deliberate. Since when did that become a liability? He is intelligent. Since when was that a drawback for a leader? He does change his mind. You would prefer a leader who ignores his staff, military leaders, and intelligence estimates to one who flies by the seat of his pants? Based on his immense international experience? Remember, W had only left the United States once in his life prior to becoming the President. No wonder the lack of global understanding. He only knows politics Texas-style. Mr. Kerry brings a level of tact, acumen, and perspective that is sorely lacking in our present Commander-in-Chief, and I think he showed that last night. Overall, I give him an A-.
I am a Democrat, and proud of it. I care about people, and the future of the world. Mr. Bush is a threat to that future.
Reading through a bit of Sun Tzu recently, I could not help but come to a few conclusions. Two millennia have really not made his (their) conclusions any less viable. When the Art of War was written, China had four thousand years of history from which to learn about martial action. As philosopher George Santayana once said, “Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
The Art of War, Sun Tzu
Spies cannot be usefully employed without a certain intuitive sagacity; (2) They cannot be properly managed without benevolence and straight forwardness; (3) Without subtle ingenuity of mind, one cannot make certain of the truth of their reports.
It is undisputed that the United States was duped by Iraqi expatriates and Baathist insiders prior to the invasion, and fed volumes of misinformation. And the words “subtle” and “ingenuity” are not found in the Bush administration’s vocabulary.
He who wishes to fight must first count the cost. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men’s weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be dampened. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor dampened, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue… In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.
The cost of this elective war, in lives, prestige, or dollars, was never honestly calculated, at least not publicly.
He who exercises no forethought, but makes light of his opponents is sure to be captured by them. The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory. No leader should put troops into the field merely to gratify his own spleen; no leader should fight a battle simply out of pique. Hence the enlightened leader is heedful, and the good leader full of caution.
Is there really an argument that we were rash in our leap to release the dogs of war? That we made light of the fact that we were setting out to wage a vengeful war? Attacking out of displaced anger? Riding the crest of a wave of lies?
To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting. If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. Indirect tactics, efficiently applied, are inexhaustible as heaven and earth, unending as the flow of rivers and streams; like the sun and the moon, they end but to begin anew; like the four seasons, they pass away to return once more.
Ahhh, the true crux of the issue. Sun Tzu, twenty-five hundred years ago, recognized the value in seeing issues from your enemy’s perspective. Isn’t it common sense that there is value in trying to understand why these people hate us so much? Is there any dialogue going on, right now, with Muslim leaders, even those belonging to the insurgency? Any attempt to get into the heads of our foes? Is diplomacy now a four-letter word? Or are our leaders only able to make their point or share ideas at gunpoint?
Throw your soldiers into positions whence there is no escape, and they will prefer death to flight. If they will face death, there is nothing they may not achieve.
This pertains to the terrorists, and insurgency. The point is, that, justified or not, there is a certain percentage of Muslims in this world that feel threatened by the United States and its policies. In the face of this perceived threat, these fighters will not retreat from the fight. Should we merely maintain our present course in the world and feign blindness to the consequences of our actions? And when we run into dissent, or are attacked, continue to send out teams of killers to “protect” our interests? Or attempt to initiate a dialogue? To reach some sort of understanding? Recognize that we can’t behave as though we live in a vacuum? Which has greater value? Don’t we all benefit from having more friends in the world? We may make enemies with our words and policies, but I am sure we never made a friend by shooting them. We have created more enemies than we have quelled.
Our enemies multiply faster than we can kill them, and we “stay the course”. In the face of increasing insurgency, we “stay the course”. Terrorists pour into the country, and we “stay the course”. I say, “Just say NO!”
He who can modify his tactics in relation to his opponent and thereby succeed in winning, may be called a heaven-born captain. For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the supreme of excellence. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence.
There is still time to change the road we’re on. But not much. Make this election a referendum on the war-mongering, isolationist policies of the Bush administration. Send them packing!